Google has unveiled a remote desktop service allowing connections between any …

Google has unveiled a remote desktop service allowing connections between any two systems running the Chrome browser, regardless of operating system. As usual with Google, there’s a big emphasis on the “beta” tag in the Chrome Remote Desktop BETA, which is ready for the public to use, but mostly exists to demonstrate Google Chrome Remoting technology and get feedback from users.

In other words, Google is cautioning users not to expect a fully-fledged remote desktop experience. Yet despite some performance glitches, the beta shows promise. Remote desktop technology certainly is nothing new, but Google’s is free, at least for now, and extremely easy to set up. It is currently being targeted at IT helpdesk scenarios, but “additional use cases such as being able to access your own computer remotely are coming soon,” Google says.

All you need are two computers running the Chrome browser. In each, navigate to the Chrome Web Store to install the remote desktop extension, while granting the software permission to access “all data on your computer and the websites you visit.” I tested it out today using a MacBook Air, a Samsung Chromebook and an old Dell Latitude D620 running Ubuntu Linux.

After installing the Chrome extension, click the Remote Desktop icon from the new tab page, and then click the “share this computer” button. This will generate a 12-digit one-time access code that must be typed into a second computer in order to grant it remote access privileges to the first. The shared desktop appears within a Chrome browser tab.

The remote desktop session lets you manipulate the remote computer in most of the ways you’d expect, for example clicking on browser links, opening applications and viewing the file system. But while mouse-clicking works fine, the two-finger scroll on a Mac or Chromebook trackpad didn’t work for me. There was also an annoying little popup informing me that my desktop is being shared, which I could move off to the side but not completely remove from the screen.

A full-screen option puts the entire remote desktop into the Chrome browser tab, but with lower resolution. Viewing at the higher quality is better overall, although you have to scroll up and down to see the whole desktop. This was problematic in Chrome on Mac, because the two-finger scroll didn’t work and I could never get the scroll bar itself to work during a remote desktop session. The scroll bar worked just fine on the Chromebook, however, resulting in a much smoother ride.

While a Windows, Linux or Mac desktop can be shared with a Chromebook, the Chromebook desktop cannot be accessed remotely at this time. During testing, I mostly used the remote desktop tool with the Chromebook, Mac and Linux computers, but I was able to verify that it does work with Windows by connecting to a Windows 7 VM on the Mac.

Performance was decent when connecting computers that were both on my home WiFi network. While accessing the Mac from the Ubuntu machine, typed characters registered on both screens almost simultaneously. But there were sometimes delays of several seconds when switching from one application to another.

There were also glitches in accessing the Linux computer from the Mac, with the Chrome extension in Ubuntu crashing a couple of times. The Chromebook was not always able to establish a connection with Ubuntu, but when connecting to the Mac the Chromebook provided a reliable and relatively quick experience.

Chromebooks can already access Windows applications through Google’s technology partnership with Citrix’s virtualization team. But that solution is mostly focused on business customers. Giving users a free and simple way to connect to computers remotely could increase the appeal of the Chromebook, which is limited compared to Windows, Mac and Linux, because it forces all applications to work in the browser.

While I’ve mostly been using Chrome Remote Desktop to connect computers on the same WiFi network, I also switched my Chromebook to Verizon 3G to see if using two different Internet connections would harm performance. The Chromebook on 3G can still make the remote desktop connection and perform reasonably well, but lags a few seconds behind when switching from one application to another. The 3G problems aside, the Remote Desktop application worked best on the whole from within the Chromebook, which is good news if Google intends to make this a selling point for its browser-only Chrome OS operating system.

The Chrome extension has been downloaded more than 30,000 times and been given strong ratings by users.

“It’s simple to use and it works,” one user writes in the Chrome Web Store reviews. But the same user noted that it’s difficult to use when accessing one’s own computer from a remote location, because someone needs to provide an access code. (One way around this would be to grab the access code before you leave home. But the code does change every time you use it, so if you drop the connection and have to reconnect, you’d have to get a new code.) Others noted performance problems, with one user saying “needs speed when running applications and manipulating software in general,” and another complained that left-clicking the Windows 7 start button didn’t work and that overall performance was “very, very slow and unresponsive.”

Given that the application was just released in beta a few days ago, it should get significantly better over time if Google sticks with the project. “So far it works as good as some paid software I've used,” one user writes. “I hope Google continues to improve this because this will help me troubleshoot my family's PC issues.”

37 Reader Comments

What about SOHO firewalls? Does the average user have to poke a hole in his/her firewall at home to make this work? Or does Google take a PogoPlug-style approach where a Google server relays information between the two end points?

It works, but I'd much rather have a dedicated client solution, any platform worth 2 cents is gonna have an RDP client available to it anyway. So while this might sound cool. This wheel doesn't need to be reinvented IMO.

It works, but I'd much rather have a dedicated client solution, any platform worth 2 cents is gonna have an RDP client available to it anyway. So while this might sound cool. This wheel doesn't need to be reinvented IMO.

Except that the Home versions of Windows don't support hosting RDP sessions except as a troubleshooting tool - you have to initiate the session from the machine being remoted to. Right now, obviously, that's also how CRD works. The difference is that Google is likely to include an always-available CRD session at some point, while Microsoft has no incentive to do the same for RDP.

I DO like the idea of screen-sharing to family and clients, without having to "set them up" first (as with LogMeIn), or pay a fee (as with GoToAssist).

I DON'T like the idea of having every computer with Chrome installed accessible remotely just because it has Chrome installed. The potential for abuse is too high, and Chrome is otherwise a great web browser.

Catch-22 I suppose, with the appeal being ubiquitous access, but the approach here feels instinctively less like a great new feature and more like an attack vector, even a trojan horse.

I DON'T like the idea of having every computer with Chrome installed accessible remotely just because it has Chrome installed. The potential for abuse is too high, and Chrome is otherwise a great web browser.

Catch-22 I suppose, with the appeal being ubiquitous access, but the approach here feels instinctively less like a great new feature and more like an attack vector, even a trojan horse.

Appears to just be a Extension/Add-on at this time, its not actually built into Chrome, not sure if there are plans to build it in though.

I DO like the idea of screen-sharing to family and clients, without having to "set them up" first (as with LogMeIn), or pay a fee (as with GoToAssist).

I DON'T like the idea of having every computer with Chrome installed accessible remotely just because it has Chrome installed. The potential for abuse is too high, and Chrome is otherwise a great web browser.

Catch-22 I suppose, with the appeal being ubiquitous access, but the approach here feels instinctively less like a great new feature and more like an attack vector, even a trojan horse.

??

Every version of Windows since XP (SP 2?) is accessible remotely just because it has Windows installed. Depending on the version, you just have to turn on remote access and/or initiate a remote sharing session. Assuming that CRD doesn't do something pants-on-head retarded like default to "sharing on, username & password blank," I don't see how it's worse security.

I DON'T like the idea of having every computer with Chrome installed accessible remotely just because it has Chrome installed. The potential for abuse is too high, and Chrome is otherwise a great web browser.

Catch-22 I suppose, with the appeal being ubiquitous access, but the approach here feels instinctively less like a great new feature and more like an attack vector, even a trojan horse.

Appears to just be a Extension/Add-on at this time, its not actually built into Chrome, not sure if there are plans to build it in though.

And if it was, I'd guarantee they would ship that feature disabled by default.

It's not clear what problem this is solving. Why do I need my browser to enable remote desktop access when it is available in so many other locations through so many other facilities? It's like everyone is trying to poke more holes in the security of the desktop at every turn.

Nice. This looks much simpler than Team Viewer. It would be good to know more about how it works. Is it based on VNC? Is the source code posted to a Google Code project? Let's see if Google is able to maintain it. OS X Lion broke many remote desktop solutions, such as gitso. Possibly a browser plugin will be easier to maintain.

It's not clear what problem this is solving. Why do I need my browser to enable remote desktop access when it is available in so many other locations through so many other facilities? It's like everyone is trying to poke more holes in the security of the desktop at every turn.

In what way do you see RDP as a comparable solution, did all firewalls open up 3389 recently?

I don't work in IT, or any computer field, but wouldn't this make your network less secure?

Chrome already installs to the user account and not the computer, now it can remotely control Te computer to? Short of having a group policy white listing applications, forbidding downloads, and closing ports, or booting from a read only image is there any google tool to prevent computers on a network from using this?

Every version of Windows since XP (SP 2?) is accessible remotely just because it has Windows installed. Depending on the version, you just have to turn on remote access and/or initiate a remote sharing session. Assuming that CRD doesn't do something pants-on-head retarded like default to "sharing on, username & password blank," I don't see how it's worse security.

Let's not be fatuous. It takes a bit more work to make a Windows, Mac or Linux PC available remotely using the tools included by default on those systems. My concern is not that remote access to a system is suddenly made possible by Chrome as though it had never been possible before.

My concern is this: as a feature of Chrome, this could enable remote access to computers -despite- the conventional practices that restrict the exposure of the standard RDP, ARD and VNC protocols.

But you're right if I take your point kindly that I'm just being paranoid.

Seems like bloat to me. I don't really want my browser having that ability.

Simple - don't take the time out of your day to implement that browser plug-in =). The problem would come in if they made this an integrated part of the Chrome browser by default AND made it impossible to remove/disable. As for security - Team Viewer is very similar. I have used that religiously as a way to fix family member's computers and it saves me the need to drive to their houses most of the time. I've used it for tutoring people on computer related things, and as a collaboration tool. I have explained how it works to each person and I make sure they only turn it on when I need them to allow my connection. Likewise, I completely close out of and exit mine when I am done just to be safe. Just be sure to be smart with your passwords (including on windows login when using these types of programs). I am happy to see some alternative choices when it comes to remote desktop management and the increased competition should drive innovation. This is not a bad thing.

What is Google's purpose these days? I remember around 2004-2008 they kept saying they were trying to organize the worlds information. Now they are building "operating systems", phones a browser that can't block scripts and for what? Data Mining? ....Creepy stuff.

RDP has spoiled me, and I want it to be full screen....give full screen.

Also let me connect without a damn access code or permission from the user.

When I worked as a server room IT. I often got calls on a daily basis from off-sites admins to have their own servers rebooted may be due to locked up on his end and or needed to refreshing the memory for a better smoother ride? Those were the Windows servers. Easy enough and that's why most corporations use Windows because of Windows is user friendly. Oh well, this is history, everyone knows that...

But as for security, without access code? IMO, it sucks. Anyone could login in his/her servers and mess with its files. Google must have seen this a problem and so comes up with this idea of access code which should add security to the servers that needed to be secured.

Make a lot of sense? IMO. And even for non-corporate home users access code won't hurt a bit at all. Wha'st the trouble to have your family to refreshed the computer's memory and let you know the new code through your cell?

Quote:

If you want to remote into a machine in your network you need third party software.

Can anyone make a good case for this even being part of the web browser? It makes no sense at all.

Platform-agnostic (OS *and* CPU architecture) solution? No need to install dedicated client/server software? Connect via browser (port 80), without need to configure firewalls? Also, this probably eliminates the need to set up port forwarding on local area networks.

That said, it's kind of scary that a web browser can be given such broad access to the OS and file system when the browser is already a major attack vector. I'll stick with RDP for now, thank you very much.

kray28 wrote:

People asking "why is this useful?" should realize that Win 7 Home Premim purposely disables RDP.

If you want to remote into a machine in your network you need third party software.

Home premium does not "disable" RDP. It simply doesn't include the server, so you can't connect *to* a Home Premium computer via RDP, but you can connect *from* it via the client. Debatable choice, but that's life. I bought Win7 Ultimate specifically because of this. In my experience RDP is extremely fast, although of course limited by the speed of your connection, especially the upload speed of the server. When I upgraded to fibre I could watch Flash movies on my home computer from work without skipping

Well I think it is a good tool for personal use to substitute for free Teamviewer or Logmein. Obviously it is not a robust tool for an IT tech to use because it does not support features like auto reconnect. I don't think Google meant for it to replace the remote support tool in a IT toolbox (ie Bomgar, ScreenConnect, LMIR or Teamviewer Corporate) but instead for users to be able to work on Chromebooks or do minimal support for family or friends.

I DO like the idea of screen-sharing to family and clients, without having to "set them up" first (as with LogMeIn), or pay a fee (as with GoToAssist).

I DON'T like the idea of having every computer with Chrome installed accessible remotely just because it has Chrome installed. The potential for abuse is too high, and Chrome is otherwise a great web browser.

Catch-22 I suppose, with the appeal being ubiquitous access, but the approach here feels instinctively less like a great new feature and more like an attack vector, even a trojan horse.

Won't a computer only be accessible if you have both the chrome browser AND the remote extension installed? So just don't install the extension on every computer... Also I think the access code would prevent "abuse"

But as for security, without access code? IMO, it sucks. Anyone could login in his/her servers and mess with its files. Google must have seen this a problem and so comes up with this idea of access code which should add security to the servers that needed to be secured.

Make a lot of sense? IMO. And even for non-corporate home users access code won't hurt a bit at all. Wha'st the trouble to have your family to refreshed the computer's memory and let you know the new code through your cell?

Seriously, just what the hell are you talking about?

This thing generates a new, single-use, 12-character access code every time you decide to launch it and click on "Share this computer" - as a matter of fact it is much more secure than using the same login over RDP like most users do, FYI.

Quote:

The feds?

You mean the same feds who already have the full Microsoft Forensic Kit, which, is also used by every city police force's forensic team?

I'm waiting for the verision where you can connect to an authorized computer without the code. Untill that feature comes out theres no need for me to try out the plug in. Anyways that feature is most likely going to be tied to your Google account and you have to authorize computers like you currently do with LogMeIn.

My interest in this is only perked because I've been considering getting a chrome book for school and would like the ability (that isn't clumsy or patched up work arounds) to access my pc's at home.

Untill then I'll keep using LogMeIn to trouble shoot for my grandparents (Win7 to XP,Vista, & Win7). It works. I don't see Chromoting replacing it unless it works better or LogMeIn drops their free service.

"But the same user noted that it’s difficult to use when accessing one’s own computer from a remote location, because someone needs to provide an access code. (One way around this would be to grab the access code before you leave home. But the code does change every time you use it, so if you drop the connection and have to reconnect, you’d have to get a new code.)

That is crazy.

Why wouldn't I just use Windows Live Mesh (if i were on PCs) to get the full multi-mon RDP experience?